I have not read through this whole thread, so am not replying to anyone's position in particular. But on CNN yesterday morning they interviewed a couple people from the medical field who were offering interesting information to suggest we should be more selective with social distancing. One, a doctor, I think, but maybe in epidemiology, wrote an article (New York Times?) that stated that a number of people are being kept from getting vital care for other conditions by staying away from hospitals and clinics due to distancing, and that the gap in preventative care could have a larger impact on the number of mortalities from other causes than from Covid, and suggested that stay-at-home rules should only apply to the vulnerable part of the population. That places like senior care facilities continue strict control but that schools and places of work return to some sort of normal. They also interviewed a researcher in epidemiology (I believe) who was introduced as one of the top 100 cited academics in the world. He mentioned that studies from multiple random anti-body tests are showing that there has been a much higher infection rate than was indicated by testing of only those showing symptoms. (Which of course means mortality rate is lower than we thought.) Like a typical researcher, he didn't specifically offer a recommendation on what policy should be, but he pretty much suggested that working towards herd immunity through selective protection of the vulnerable made sense. He essentially state that young people have tended to show no symptoms to those of a minor cold, and middle-aged (seemed to be up to 60-65, but not clear) tended to suffer the equivalent of a bad case of flu. And it was those who are older, and of course have other health issues, who are having the real problem and need to be isolated. But he thought that allowing less vulnerable middle-age and young to return to more normal activities made sense. Interview wasn't long, so they didn't get into whether this meant continuing with social distancing of six feet for all, masks, or what else, which of course would still be a problem for those attending athletics. But it sheds more light on the Sweden experiment. (Sorry, but am too lazy to look for either a video of the interview or the article.)
And as for the Sweden experiment, (which I haven't followed closely) the success shouldn't really be judged on how many or few cases they have relative to other neighbors now. It is on whether they exceed the number they can take care of at one time and at the end of all this, how they compare. If Sweden ends up with an equivalent number of deaths, but can return to a normal economy in 6 months because they have achieved herd immunity, but neighbors continue to have flare ups for 2 years before they achieve the same level and their economy is stagnant for that time, which is better? Some of this really depends on if there is a vaccine developed and reproduced in a reasonable amount of time. So we can argue about the approach Sweden took versus others, but we won't really know until this has passed. And maybe we'll have learned for the next time around.